TONY BLAIR yesterday sensationally claimed he did not understand the true meaning of the 45-minute claim in the Government's dossier on the Iraq threat, before MPs voted on military action.

TONY BLAIR yesterday sensationally claimed he did not understand the true meaning of the 45-minute claim in the Government's dossier on the Iraq threat, before MPs voted on military action.

The Prime Minister told MPs he did not know the intelligence referred to short- range battlefield munitions rather than long-range missiles, at the time of the crunch vote on March 18, 2003.

The admission came on a day of extraordinary scenes as the Prime Minister was heckled by anti-war protesters during the Commons debate on the Hutton Report.

Seven protesters were drag- ged from the public gallery after calling Mr Blair a "murderer" and a "war criminal".

"I somehow feel I am not being entirely persuasive in some quarters," joked the Prime Minister, as he defended the Government's decision to go to war.

However, an angry Speaker Michael Martin briefly suspended the Commons as the public gallery was cleared for the first time since 1987.

In a separate protest, white paint was hurled at the gates of Downing Street over the perceived "whitewash" by Lord Hutton, which exonerated the Government of any wrongdoing in the David Kelly affair.

During the six-hour debate, Mr Blair was asked whether he knew, ahead of the crunch vote, the intelligence on the 45 minutes referred to battlefield weapons.

He replied, "No. I have already indicated exactly when this came to my attention. It was not before the debate on 18 March last year."

However Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry indicated he knew the difference at the time the Government's report was published in September 2002.

The admission will re-fuel calls for the new inquiry into pre-war intelligence on Iraq to encompass its use and interpretation by Government.

Defence expert Dr Paul Moorcraft said, "I find it almost impossible to believe the Prime Minister did not understand the difference."

Mr Blair told MPs even if the intelligence was wrong, the war was certainly right, as Saddam Hussein was guilty of multiple breaches of UN resolutions and had a "total and unrepentant malignant intent" to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

He dismissed calls by a former intelligence official to publish the secret evidence which convinced spy chiefs that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons.

Brian Jones, a former branch head in the Defence Intelligence Staff, said he believed that the handful of top intelligence officials who actually saw the evidence may have "misinterpreted" it.

Mr Blair said Dr Jones had never claimed the material should not have been included in the dossier only that it should have said "intelligence indicates" rather than "intelligence shows" Iraq had chemical and biological weapons.

"I agree there is a difference between those two things, but let us be quite clear, it is hardly of earth-shattering significance in terms of what will be in the dossier," he added.

Downing Street said the original MI6 report on the 45- minute point had not specified the "delivery system" and so there had been no reason for the PM to ask the question.

But former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who resigned from the Government over the war, said he was "surprised" by Mr Blair's claim not to know the nature of the weapons covered.

"I find it difficult to reconcile what I knew and what I am sure the Prime Minister knew at the time we had the vote in March."